linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] DMAEngine: Define generic transfer request api

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2011 19:13:24 +0530
From:	"Koul, Vinod" <vinod.koul@...el.com>
To:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:	Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>, sundaram@...com,
	dan.j.williams@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk,
	nsekhar@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] DMAEngine: Define generic transfer request api

On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 15:06 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Koul, Vinod <vinod.koul@...el.com> wrote:
> 
> > Currently we have two approaches to solve this problem first being the
> > DMA_STRIDE_CONFIG proposed by Linus W, I feel this one is better
> > approach as this can give client ability to configure each transfer
> > rather than set for the channel. Linus W, do you agree?
> 
> I think Sundaram is in the position of doing some heavy work on
> using one or the other of the API:s, and I think he is better
> suited than anyone else of us to select what scheme to use,
> in the end he's going to write the first code using the API.
And Unfortunately TI folks don't seem to care about this discussion :(
Haven't seen anything on this from them, or on previous RFC by Jassi

-- 
~Vinod

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/